The Preparation for The Olympic Games of 2016 - Term Paper Example

This paper deals with the preparation for the Olympic Games of that are to be held in Rio. The first part of the paper is about the progress of the project till now and identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the current building program using the tools and techniques taught in the class. The second part of the paper deals with the matters of particular importance that need to be dealt with by the city of Rio when they are preparing to host the Olympics. PART A Introduction In this part, I present a report aimed at Rio based on the current state of infrastructure and the readiness of London to host the 2012 Olympics. The report draws upon the sources that are available online and in the public domain. The aim of this report is to present a detailed list of action points that the organising committee for the Rio Olympics in 2016 can use to ready themselves for the final event. The emphasis throughout this report would be on the strengths and weaknesses of the current building program and I suggest means of improving the same. 2012 Olympics from a Project Management Perspective In this section, I look at the preparation for the 2012 Olympics in London from a project manager’s perspective. The points that are highlighted include the budget and the cost overruns, the effect of recession on the 2012 Olympics and the current state of the building program with an emphasis on finding out the pros and cons of the same. Much has been said and written about how the 2016 Olympics would revolutionize the city of Rio and make it an attractive destination for tourism and investment. It is instructive to learn from the mistakes of the 2012 Olympics project so that Rio does indeed fulfil the promise of the Olympics and the reasons for hosting it. There has been much criticism about the way in which the budget for the 2012 Olympics has increased from 2.4 Billion Pounds to 9.35 Billion Pounds in a matter of two years. And the current estimate is around 13.5 Billion Pounds. As any Project Manager would explain, cost overruns and non-planned expenditure increase with time and as the project nears completion. Hence, there is reason to believe that the budget for the London Olympics would go up further. The following excerpt from the Public Accounts Committee details the reasons for this overrun, “The 2012 budget was revised, in part, because of serious problems with the original bid estimates that have come to light since London was chosen to host the Games. Examples highlighted by the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons are numerous: Whole categories of cost were not included in the original bid, including VAT costs, the contingency margin and wider security costs (the importance of which no one would dispute). The original bid forecast that private sector funding would reach £738 million, a quarter of the total costs. There is now little prospect of significant private sector funding.” (PAC, 2007) Apart from the budget overruns, what makes the matters worse for the London Olympics is the ongoing global economic slowdown that has hit the UK hard and this makes it difficult for the organizers to raise additional funds that may be required for the effort. Finally, the current state of infrastructure is just about adequate and the point has to be mentioned that London per se has an efficient public transport system that can serve the purpose of hosting millions of tourists and fans who would converge on the city for the Olympics. Strengths and Weaknesses of the current building program In this section, I take a look at the strengths and weaknesses of the current building program for the London Olympics. I rely upon publicly available information to analyze the same by using the tools and techniques taught in the class. To take the Olympic stadium as the starting point, the following excerpt is illustrative of the general perception about its design and the emphasis on sustainability that has been bandied about by the organizing committee. “The London Olympics stadium, which was unveiled this week, came with some carefully crafted words about sustainability. Leaving aside that the design itself is not, as claimed by the ODA “innovative and ground breaking” there are far more serious questions to be asked about its legacy, and its value for money. First, there is nothing sustainable about building an 80,000 seat stadium for less than two months’ use. Apart from the pollution caused by its construction (let alone the time and effort by all involved); the legacy plans are still unclear.” (BD Online, 2007) To quote from the article in BD Online, “Rod Sheard of HOK Sport has gone out of his way to stress that this is not an iconic building, although apparently it will look good from the air. Design was never at the forefront of the procurement process like it should have been, and the ODA — for reasons it must now regret — did not hold a competition for its most important Olympic building. (BD Online, 2007). The latest report commissioned by the city council of London makes a case for more involvement of local people, benefits extending to all classes of people and finally, it also comments on the building program that is currently underway. To quote from the conclusion of the report, “The report concludes that the OPLC needs to focus on skills, employment, sports participation and housing to provide long-term benefits to the local community. It also notes that the OPLC’s narrow remit makes it hard to directly deliver significant socio-economic benefits. Instead, it must work with the Mayor, central government and local authorities to achieve the ambitious legacy envisaged in the original bid.” (Greater London Authority, 2010) Recommendations for Rio In this section, I make specific recommendations for the organizing committee of the 2016 Olympics drawing on the sections above in terms of what to avoid and what to follow that follows the analysis of the building program. One of the reasons why countries around the world are so keen on hosting Olympics is because of the perceived benefits the games bring in terms of making the country an attractive destination for investment and tourism. Though cities like London are already the centers’ of trade and financial hubs, it is indeed a quantum leap for cities like Rio to be able to host the Olympics. What works against Rio is its track record of hosting games and the way in which it has hosted them. For instance, “Winning the 2007 Pan American Games was considered a big, if sometimes chaotic, success for Rio. To triumph over rival bidder San Antonio, officials used the same argument — that this was Rios turn. To back that up, they promised to transform the city with a new ring road system, something called a "via light" railway (presumably a light railway), a new state highway and 54 km of new metro lines. But none of the roads, nary a kilometer of metro line, were built. Authorities also promised to clean up the Guanabara Bay, the fetid body of water whose smell assails visitors driving into town from the international airport. Although hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent, the stench persists and the bay remains a stinking eyesore.” (Time, 2009). The city of Rio may well pay heed to the concerns of the experts that I have quoted in the sections above that relate to the way in which the building program has progressed and the necessary adjustments that need to be made to suit the particular local conditions. What is clear from the analysis of the excerpts related to the London Olympics is that the building program for the 2012 games has been beset by problems that are structural in nature. Hence, this is something that the city of Rio can well avoid when it commences its work on building the infrastructure. Added to this is the effect of the global economic slowdown that might result in the city of Rio not getting enough sponsorship money as well as funding to the extent that it needs. Finally, the 2016 games committee would well remember that with the uncertainty in the global economy continuing, the prices of the raw materials and the associated costs may well go up resulting in the estimates going haywire. This is one reason for the organizing committee to hedge against future rises in a prudent and well planned manner. Coupled to this is the fact that expertise may not be available locally and hence there would be a need to call for global tenders in constructing the stadia and the necessary infrastructure. Conclusion The city of Rio may well learn from the lessons that are evident from the way in which the 2012 Olympics have been managed so far. These are important indicators for a city like Rio that has never hosted games of this magnitude and does not have the necessary expertise for the same. Hence, a prudent and well thought out approach would be in its interests as it moves up the curve of learning and gets into the action mode. In conclusion, I end this part with the hope that the organising committee for Rio would indeed take note of these pitfalls and improve on them. PART B Introduction This section discusses the Project Management aspects of hosting Olympics in an urban city. The city in this case is Rio. The document outlines the Scope, Time, Cost, Quality, Human Resource, Procurement, Risk and Communication aspects of the Project. The document is structured in the order listed above with an interspersed listing of various processes like Initiating, Planning, Executing and Monitoring within the framework. Typically such projects have time and cost overruns and are mired in litigation and objections from various stakeholders. Further, the Project would be managed by a consortium of developers – International with partnership of local ones. Before embarking on the project, all the stakeholders should be clearly identified and a charter drawn up with legal advice as to the roles and responsibilities of each. In a third-world city, there are numerous pressures from the local political and economic setup for additions and deletions of the proposed route. This can take the form of tedious litigation that should be factored in the planning process. A failure to do so would result in time and cost overruns. Scope Before embarking on a project the size of an Olympics, the scope in terms of the number of stadia that have to be built as well as the housing for the sportspersons that need to be constructed would need to be decided. This is of course subject to iterations as the various approvals and considerations of the authorities and the citizenry themselves needs to be taken into account. Also, the land to be acquired for laying the stadia and the athletes’ village needs to be identified upfront and all obstacles to the acquisition must be dealt with. This is the single biggest reason for delays in the Olympics projects worldwide. As far as possible the scope of the project should be frozen before the commencement of actual work. However, in reality, it would not be feasible to completely have the blue-print ready before we literally “hit the ground”. Any changes to scope must be approved by a board of the project consisting of the representatives of the consortium, the local authorities and the public is invited. An “in principle” approval has to be ensured before the scope of the project is submitted for funding and technical feasibilities. There should be a mechanism to “manage” the scope-creep with due benefit to the consortium for changes, if any, to the original scope. Time Time is of the essence in any project and particularly so in the case of an Olympics for a city that is groaning under the weight of the inadequate infrastructure. There should be sweeteners for completion on time and penalties for delays. Of course, delays on account of litigation, no approvals and other exigencies should be factored into the budget. The timelines of the various phases should be communicated to all the stakeholders well in advance and any delays notified accordingly. As outlined above, delays in the timelines are mainly due to legal processes related to the acquisition of land, no clearances from local and environmental authorities and the like. Care should be taken to sort out these issues as and when they arise. Cost Apart from time, cost and quality form what is called the “triple constraint” for managers. Any overrun in one aspect causes the others to be affected as well. It is in this context that cost of the project should not be allowed to go beyond a reasonable limit over the budget. Any liability arising out of the cost overrun should be shared by the consortium as well as the authorities in a pre-defined formula. No one should be left feeling penalized for something beyond their control. The cost of the project can be met with financial assistance from global and multilateral lenders. A feasibility report should be submitted in advance. Further, regular reporting of the progress should be made to the lenders and if the public-private partnership model is followed, the authorities and the citizenry should be apprised of the progress as well. Quality In a project like the Olympics, quality is THE biggest challenge as well as threat. It is a challenge in terms of the technical aspect and a threat as the Olympics is a public utility and gaps in quality would literally be fatal to the success of the project. The international best practices like ISO, CMM and other appropriate methodologies should be followed with customizations for the local necessities. There should be stringent checks on the quality of the works being executed by the consortium by independent and certified quality auditors periodically with status reports being sent to all the relevant stakeholders. There should be compliance with environmental norms as any slippages in this regard would invite legal action. Human Resources There would be a requirement for personnel right from the technical and managerial cadres to the staff who would be involved in the actual construction. This would involve a selection process for the permanent positions as well as the contractual labor involved in the project. Typically, the requirement for the managerial positions would be in the hundreds and the construction and supervisory staff would be in the thousands. The contract labor demand would be dependent on the various phases of the project and seasonal in nature. Flexible contracts have to be drawn up accordingly. A suggested method would be to outsource the labor requirements to third party contractors so that payroll would be restricted to the permanent positions. Delays on account of strikes or other protests by the staff should be minimized by following global best practices with regards to pay and other facilities. Communications A communication protocol has to be drawn up wherein the reporting of the status or progress of the project is intimated to the relevant stakeholders at defined intervals. Since the project would be a “high visibility” one, involving the press and the public has to be taken into account as well. It would be appropriate if the status reporting is done monthly to the board of the project and as and when required to the other stakeholders. Spokespersons should be identified so that the communication channels with the media are kept open. Procurement The procurement of the raw materials like steel, cement, coaches, overhead electrical lines – to name a few- should be transparent and with full accountability. A global tender should be called so that the best materials at the best prices are obtained through competitive bidding. Due diligence must be done in the selection of vendors to supply the raw material. Periodic inspections of the quality of the materials supplied should be undertaken so that there are no sub-standard items being used. As mentioned above, quality is the biggest factor, the Olympics being a public service utility. When third party vendors are involved, there are contractual obligations that need to be met in terms of the payment schedule etc. Compliance of such obligations must be ensured for a smoother vendor-buyer relationship. Risk There can be several forms of Risk to the Olympics project. The risk can be lack of proper technical feasibility, poor quality control, delay in acquisition of land, legal hurdles, environmental concerns and the like. A risk management matrix must be prepared in advance identifying the possible risks and their mitigation plans. Any open risks must be noted and an action plan for their mitigation prepared. There should be periodic reviews of the risk management plan with all the stakeholders. Corporate Social Responsibility An Olympics is essentially a public service project. So it is the responsibility of the developers to provide a high standard of service to the public. Also, care has to be taken to ensure that the populace is not inconvenienced due to the construction of the project. As far as possible, local citizens must be involved to devise ways in which inconvenience to the public is minimized. Conclusion In conclusion, this proposal gives a high-level overview of the various aspects of the project management of the topic. The processes like initiating, planning, executing and monitoring should be integrated into the framework and the intersections with the areas mentioned above documented. Hosting an Olympics is usually an ambitious attempt to solve the transport problems faced in a third world city with a growing population and inadequate infrastructure. It is can be described as an exercise in complexity on a gigantic scale. This proposal does not aim to provide a full fledged account of the various activities nor the processes themselves. It is just an attempt to provide an overview of how a Project Management Plan for an Olympics would look like. Sources PMBOK (3rd Ed, 2006) (Project Management Body of Knowledge) Project Management Institute. Public Accounts Committee, “Preparations for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympics Games – Risk assessment and management”, June 2007, pp.5-6. Baillieu, Amanda. “2012 Olympics Stadium Disappoints on All Fronts”. BD Online. Retrieved Feb 19, 2010 from: http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3099496 Downie, Andrew. “Rio’s Olympic Quest: Can it handle the 2016 Games?” Time Online. Retrieved Feb 19, 2010 from: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1926094,00.html The Project Management Institute. PMI Online. Retrieved Feb 19, 2010 from: http://www.pmi.org/Search/AdvancedResults.aspx?s=Everywhere&k=2012+Olympics Legacy Limited? Assembly review of the Olympic Park Legacy Company’s Role. London Government. Retrieved Feb 19, 2010 from: http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/the-london-assembly/publications/2012-games/legacy-limited Read More